[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1252010965.18338.63.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:49:25 -0400
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
To: Simon Kirby <sim@...tway.ca>
Cc: Yohan <ytordjman@...p.free.fr>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>, mikevs@...all.net
Subject: Re: VM issue causing high CPU loads
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 13:05 -0700, Simon Kirby wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 10:02:06AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>
> > OK, so 16 hash buckets are likely to be filled with ~10^6 entries each.
> > I can see that might be a performance issue...
>
> We have a similar setup with millions of UIDs over NFS (currently NFSv3).
> I _wish_ there were a way to use NFSv4 without having to use name-mapped
> UIDs and GIDs, since our user and group names come from MySQL anyway, and
> are guaranteed to be consistent across machines.
That's a separate issue.
I'm working on increasing the idmapper scalability, however another
project is currently taking up most of my time. I can't guarantee that
the revised idmapper code will be finished in time to allow for
inclusion in 2.6.32.
> Why on earth does NFSv4 force the use of names?
NFSv4 aspires to be an internet-wide protocol, and so you cannot use
uids/gids: they just aren't guaranteed to represent a unique user
outside your local LDAP/NIS or /etc/passwd domain. Furthermore, uids and
gids are a posix construct. They simply don't work in environments where
you may have lots of non-posix systems.
Trond
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists